Commercial Cultivation Within Forest Land Not Protected Under FRA, 2006: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has observed that commercial cultivation of crops within forest areas cannot be recognised as a forest right under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Court clarified that planned or promoted commercial farming cannot be used as a legal justification for occupying or continuing to remain on forest land.
The observation was made by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while dealing with issues concerning encroachments and forest rights claims in the Megamalai region of Tamil Nadu.
The region forms part of the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and the Agasthyamalai landscape, an ecologically significant forest area.
The proceedings primarily concerned extensive silk cotton cultivation within the forest area. The Tamil Nadu Government had attempted to justify such cultivation by claiming that it had historically been practised in the region and that government authorities had previously encouraged the activity.
The State also argued that silk cotton should be treated as minor forest produce under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, thereby providing a basis for recognising the rights of those involved in its cultivation.
However, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about this argument. It distinguished between naturally occurring minor forest produce and the planned cultivation of commercial crops.
Referring to Section 3(1)(c) of the Forest Rights Act, the Bench observed that the provision recognises the rights of eligible forest-dwelling communities to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce traditionally collected from forest areas.
The Court emphasised that this statutory protection cannot automatically be extended to planned commercial cultivation of crops.
The Bench observed that the concept of planned cultivation of commercial crops is fundamentally contrary to the idea of naturally occurring minor forest produce. It further stated that commercial cultivation cannot be recognised as a forest right to justify occupation or continued presence within forest areas.
The Court also expressed concern that permitting commercial crop cultivation inside forests could fundamentally alter their ecological character. It observed that extensive commercial plantations could change the very nature of forest areas.
According to figures submitted by the Tamil Nadu Government, approximately 4,594 persons were occupying 5,072.64 hectares of forest land, while silk cotton cultivation covered approximately 3,637.83 hectares.
The occupants and cultivators were divided into three categories. The first category consisted of 1,595 persons permanently residing and cultivating within the forest area. The second included 232 persons who had temporary residences inside the forest while cultivating the land. The third category comprised 2,767 persons residing outside the forest boundaries but cultivating land within the forest.
The Supreme Court clarified that persons falling under the second and third categories could not qualify as Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes or Other Traditional Forest Dwellers merely because they cultivated land within the forest area.
The Court emphasised that eligibility under the Forest Rights Act requires fulfilment of the statutory conditions, including primary residence and dependence on forest land for livelihood.
In the case of Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, the Act additionally requires proof of occupation and dependence for at least three generations, meaning 75 years, before December 13, 2005.
Consequently, the Court directed that persons belonging to the second and third categories should be excluded from consideration under the Act on the basis of cultivation alone.
In another significant development, the Supreme Court constituted a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to supervise and scrutinise the Forest Rights Act claims in the Megamalai region.
The Committee will also include an officer of the Central Empowered Committee and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tamil Nadu. It has been directed to examine the claims and scrutinise the decisions taken by the competent authorities before submitting its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.
The Court also directed the Central Empowered Committee to examine the Tamil Nadu Government’s contention that silk cotton could be classified as minor forest produce under the Forest Rights Act.
Expressing concern over delays in implementing the statutory process, the Bench directed the State Government to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days and complete the adjudication of forest rights claims within five months of their constitution.
The State Government was further directed to submit monthly progress reports regarding the implementation of these directions.
The matter has been listed for February 1, 2027, for consideration of an interim status report.
The ruling is significant for the interpretation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, as it draws a clear distinction between the traditional collection of naturally occurring forest produce and planned commercial cultivation. It also reinforces that commercial agricultural activity, by itself, does not create a statutory forest right or establish entitlement to continued occupation of forest land.
At the same time, the judgment preserves the statutory framework for genuine forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers whose claims must be examined in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
